Why academia failed to challenge trans ideology

Dr Hilary Cass’s long-awaited review into healthcare for transgender children and young people was released this week. Her verdict was damning, and was delivered with Swiftian understatement:

‘The adoption of a medical treatment with uncertain risks, based on an unpublished trial that did not demonstrate clear benefit, is a departure from normal clinical practice.’

But perhaps even more shocking was this quote:

‘There is minimal research evidence to inform questions regarding likely trajectories and outcomes particularly in the context of: a) physical treatments (e.g. hormone blockers to suppress the onset of puberty); b) social transition (where a child presents to other people as their experienced gender e.g. using preferred gender pronouns) and; c) co-occurring ASD [Autistic Spectrum Disorder].’

It is shocking because it was not in the Cass Review at all. Instead, it comes from a funding application submitted in 2019 by the Tavistock, the NHS trust at the centre of the scandal. Clearly the Tavistock knew as far back as 2019 that there was a dearth of evidence about the long-term effects of these treatments. But